FINAL REPORT SOS PARTNERSHIP EVALUATION

FINAL REPORT SOS PARTNERSHIP EVALUATION AUGUST 2014 Dr E.L.Astbury Field August 2014

SOS PARTNERSHIP EVALUATION AUGUST 2014 CONTENTS 1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.. 4 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Evaluation objectives.. 5 2.2 Partnership description. 5 2.3 Methodology. 6 2.4 Key findings and recommendations. 6 3. INTRODUCTION. 9 3.1 SOS Evaluation 2014 10 4. SOS PARTNERSHIP PROFILE 4.1 SOS Phase One (2010 2015).. 11 4.1.1 Partnership structure.. 11 4.1.2 SOS Partnership design.. 11 4.1.3 SOS Partnership design updates.. 13 4.1.4 Fundraising strategy. 13 4.1.5 Project selection process.. 14 4.1.6 Procedures for selected projects. 15 4.1.7 Strategic directions and grants to date.. 16 5. METHOD OF REVIEW. 17 5.1 Grantee Surveys.. 17 5.2 SOS project portfolio analysis. 17 5.2.1 Completed Projects 17 5.2.2 On going Projects 18 5.3 Governance and Management Interviews 19 6. PROJECT PORTFOLIO DESCRIPTION 20 6.1 Grant Size.. 20 6.2 Applicant 20 6.3 Red List 20 6.4 Strategic Directions 21 6.5 Geography. 22 6.6 Taxa 24 7. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND FINDINGS. 25 7.1 The relevance and appropriateness of SOS: The Grantee Survey 25 7.1.1 Regard, value and relevance of SOS.. 25 7.1.2 Grant attainment and reporting 25 7.1.3 Lessons learned. 26 7.1.4 Comparison to other grant processes 27 7.1.5 Type of project supported by the SOS Grant 27 7.1.6 Leveraging support.. 28 7.1.7 Project outcomes. 28 7.1.8 Grantee comments. 30 2

7.2 Conservation supported by SOS and the reporting of conservation outcomes and impacts 7.2.1 Completed and on going projects: achieving results and objectives. 30 7.2.2 SOS targeted questions. 33 7.2.3 Conservation Actions. 36 7.3 Generating lessons learned: From projects and within SOS governance and management 7.3.1 Lessons learned reported by projects 37 7.3.2 Interview Results: governance and management. 39 7.3.2.1 Governance 39 7.3.2.2 Management 40 7.3.2.3 Grantee reporting. 41 7.3.2.4 Measuring conservation Impact.. 42 7.3.2.5 Strengthening SOS 43 8. CONCLUSIONS 8.1 Is the SOS Partnership relevant and appropriate? (Evaluation objective 1). 45 8.2 Is conservation supported by SOS and are conservation outcomes and impacts reported? (Evaluation objective 2). 45 8.3 Have lessons learned been generated? (Evaluation objective 3).. 46 9. RECOMMENDATIONS. 47 10. ANNEXES.. 48 3

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Organisations: AZE CEPF CITES CBD CMP FFEM GEF IUCN KFW SSC WWF ZSL CFP GEO PDO RAG SOS TSG CSR NGO Alliance for Zero Extinction Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Convention on Illegal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna Convention on Biological Diversity Conservation Measures Partnership Fond Français pour l'environnement Mondial Global Environment Facility International Union for the Conservation of Nature German Development Bank Species Survival Commission World Wildlife Fund Zoological Society of London Save Our Species specific: Call For Proposals Global Environment Objective Project Development Objective Rapid Action Grant Save Our Species Threatened Species Grant Other: Corporate Social Responsibility Non Governmental Organisation 4

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Evaluation objectives The purpose of the Save Our Species (SOS) Partnership evaluation, 2014, is to strengthen SOS as a grant making mechanism and as a means of delivering outcomes and impacts for threatened species conservation. Commissioned by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the evaluation is mainly for use by the IUCN, SOS management and its major donors. The evaluation objectives are to (1) assess the extent to which SOS is relevant and appropriate to the grantees and species conservation; (2) Assess the different kinds of conservation actions SOS tends to support and the extent to which grantees are able to report conservation impacts and outcomes and; (3) Generate lessons learned to date on the implementation of SOS, covering management and governance of SOS. 2.2 Partnership description Launched in October 2010, The SOS Partnership is a species conservation fund and grant makingmechanism which aims to improve the conservation status of globally threatened species, their critical habitats and the people depending on them. The Partnership was founded by the World Bank, the GEF (Global Environment Facility) and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). The first phase of SOS is running over a five year period (2010 15) and was particularly designed to direct private sector resources towards conservation levels, with the Partnership considered as wellpositioned and credible to do so. It was envisaged that SOS would leverage much needed additional funding for species conservation, especially from the private sector (and some other sources e.g. public sector), and target many threatened species. The aim was for SOS to raise its expected costs of US$20million during its first phase, half of which was pledged by the World Bank and GEF, with the remaining US$10million to be raised by the SOS Secretariat. Due to less than expected funds from the World Bank and less than expected success with corporate fundraising, the actual total funds for this period equated to US$12.8million: 64% of the original aim. The SOS Secretariat raised US$4million within this total, and in addition secured a EUR 20 million pledge from KFW, the German development Bank, for the funding of an Integrated Tiger and Habitat Conservation Programme (ITHCP) within IUCN. While strictly speaking not falling under SOS, funding for this new initiative is one of its direct fundraising successes and the programme will be based on the same structure and principles directing SOS. The fundraising strategy has progressed and from 2014, the strategy for SOS has re visited its short and long term objectives and has more conservative targets. The strategy maintains a private sector focus with the targeting of organisations that can use SOS as a mechanism to achieve environment related goals, or provide sponsorship through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)/philanthropy. There is also more emphasis on the inclusion of other sources such as foundations and public sector donations. The SOS Partnership is governed by a Donor Council, supported by a Technical Advisory Group and managed by a small Secretariat (3.5 people). The Partnership s main objectives are: (1) to support the establishment of a viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions and administered by a competent 5

organisation with global reach and: (2) to improve the conservation status of globally threatened species or populations and their habitats. Threatened Species Grant (TSG) project proposals are accepted following a call for proposals, based on a set of strategic directions for each call. These strategic directions are identified in consultation with IUCN Global Species Programme and Species Survival Commission (SSC), and guided by species action plans (existing or required) and information from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. There are also proposals which can be accepted outside of the strategic directions which are emergency projects; those which qualify are called Rapid Action Grants (RAG). Proposals received are reviewed (externally and by the Technical Advisory Committee), scored and ranked (projects are also reviewed in terms of financial risk in line with donor requirements) and submitted to the SOS Donor Council for funding approval). Projects also go through an improvement process to strengthen weaker elements. Successful projects are allocated their grant and the project is monitored throughout its progress, with reporting on project impact and performance, and lessons learned generated. There are also limited site visits and all projects keep in contact with the SOS Secretariat. A portfolio analysis compiled by the SOS Secretariat reveals that in 2014, there are 82 projects in the SOS portfolio (84 approved, 2 cancelled). The majority are grants of less than $100, 000 and are working on Critically Endangered and Endangered species as categorised by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Most projects supported are in Asia (mostly South East Asia) and Africa (most sub Saharan Africa) although projects in Asia were allocated a higher amount of the total funds. More than half of the projects and allocated funds focused or are focusing on mammals. 2.3 Methodology This evaluation was based largely on three main information sources: (1) a Grantees survey (2) projects within the SOS portfolio (15 completed projects, and 20 on going projects), and (3) direct interviews with people involved with Partnership governance and management. Information from project documents was extracted and compiled in excel spreadsheets for review, with the mostly qualitative information generated from Grantees feedback and interviews, summarised and quantified where appropriate. 2.4 Key findings and recommendations A summary of the findings from can be found in Table 1. The full details and the results from which these findings are drawn are in pages 25 44 of this document. The full and explained versions of each listed recommendation in Table 2 can be found on page 47. 6

Table 1: SOS Evaluation Findings (1 25) (1) SOS is considered to be relevant and of good value to the vast majority of respondents. (2) The grant attainment procedures are straightforward and meet grantees expectations. (3) Reporting is more than expected or too much. (4) There are indications that the request for communications may be over demanding. (5) SOS procedures can help to generate lessons learned (6) Support and communications from SOS staff is well received by Grantees. (7) The SOS experience differs from other grant making mechanisms in two ways: (a) reporting is too bureaucratic and onerous (b) impacts (e.g. for species status) are too difficult to report. (8) The majority of projects are smaller components of a long term programme, either currently or as part of future plans. (9) SOS Grants can help to leverage further project support, either financial, non financial or both. (10) Conservation objectives are facilitated by the award of an SOS grant (11) From light and informal feedback, projects are reporting conservation outcomes. (12) There is an indication that achieving outcomes within the Conservation Action categories of Law and policy and Livelihood and economics may be the most challenging. (13) SOS projects are achieving outcomes for the conservation of threatened species, with more than half of planned results and objectives achieved or exceeded by completed projects. (14) Projects are achieving unexpected impacts, with the most common cited as improved relationships with stakeholders. (15) RAG and TSG projects are both achieving conservation objectives, with the majority reporting good progress or objectives being achieved (16): The majority of projects are, at a minimum, progressing towards a positive impact for species status. (17): Projects are unlikely to report Red List status change for their focus species within the time frame of SOS monitoring. (18): Over half of projects are progressing towards a positive impact for critical habitats, or better (stabilising/improving). (19): The majority of projects are achieving threat reduction for their species, and where applicable, positive impacts or threat reduction for critical habitat are also being achieved. (20) At least some element of conservation facilitation has been improved by all completed projects. Conservation strategy appears to be the most commonly achieved conservation facilitation category. (21): The majority (>60%) of Conservation Action results and objectives in on going projects are being achieved or exceeded. (22) The most cited project specific lessons learned are: good communications, education and outreach, involvement and understanding of roles within stakeholders, and maintaining project flexibility (to new information or ways of working). (23) Reporting lessons learned is a useful process, with the majority of lessons reported being positive, and providing the opportunity to share learnings with future projects. (24) Governance arrangements are strong and well regarded, if not overcomplicated in some respects e.g. structure, review, reporting. (25) Donor support did not meet expectations in awarding funds which were budgeted for or in facilitating further support through their experience and networks. 7

Table 1: SOS Evaluation Findings continued (26 37) (26) There are many constructive suggestions highlighting good potential for the improvement and future expansion of SOS (e.g. avoid conflicts of interest, build capacity in non English speaking regions, reduce bureaucracy, identify new strategic directions and include underrepresented regions and species, improve links with other conservation initiatives). (27) The Secretariat is capable but capacity is too low to effectively manage the current portfolio size, the bureaucratic and manual procedures and processes, and the pressure of finding additional funds. (28) A full time director and fundraising professional would benefit the Partnership. (29) The model to seek funding primarily from private sector is flawed, although the global economic downturn has exacerbated the issue. (30) The use and level of engagement with reporting is low in contrast to the grantees feedback on the amount of effort and time they put into reporting. (31) From a governance and management perspective, the most important parts of grantees reports would be: concise information on impacts, progress against objectives (e.g. tabulated data), and lessons learned. (32) Communication pieces are challenging to obtain (especially from larger organisations) but are important for the profile of SOS and the individual projects. (33) The SOS Partnership is not set up or delivered within a time frame appropriate for measuring conservation impact, but does deliver return on investment through delivery of measureable outcomes in the short term. It is important this understanding underlies SOS Partnership donor support. (34) Conservation impacts are potentially measurable over a long time scale and will likely result from collective inputs, of which SOS will be part. (35) Maintaining good relations (e.g. with project stakeholders) is in itself impactful but difficult to measure. (36) There are three main aspects to improve: increase and secure the funding base, adapt procedures and reduce bureaucracy in both SOS governance and grants management, and expand Secretariat capacity. (37) Scaling up the SOS Partnership is desirable and appropriate based on the niche it fills, matched by the capability and scientific backing of its situation within the IUCN and its network. Table 1: Summary of findings of SOS Phase one evaluation, full results are found on pages 25 44 Table 2: Summary of recommendations Recommendations Related to finding(s) R1: The main SOS donors should continue their support 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 11, 13 16, 18 22, 2 26, 36, 37 R2: Increase the SOS governance and management capacity 1,6, 10, 11, 13 16, 18 22, 24, 26 28, 36,37 R3: Build on the fund raising experiences of SOS Phase One 9 11, 13 16, 18 22, 25, 29 R4: Reduce Bureaucracy 3, 4, 7, 11, 24, 36 R5: Aim for the achievement of objectives and outcomes combined with longer term monitoring 7, 8, 11, 13 22, 33, 34 R6: Consider supporting longer term programmes to increase the potential impact of SOS 1, 8, 10 14, 17, 18 22, 33 35, 37 R7: Ensure better use of reports 5, 23, 30, 31 R8: Consider different ways of generating communications stories 4, 32 Table 2: Summary of recommendations related to list of findings. For full recommendations and their explanation refer to page 47 in this report. 8

3. INTRODUCTION Founded by the World Bank, the GEF (Global Environment Facility) and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), SOS Save Our Species was launched in October 2010 as a direct response to the global challenge of stopping biodiversity loss. The SOS Operational Manual (May 2013 version) and Project Appraisal Document (March 2011) provide information that outlines what the SOS Partnership aspired to do. As described in these documents, the SOS Partnership aims to improve the conservation status of globally threatened species, their critical habitats, and the people depending on them. SOS was initiated with the intention to be a long term global Partnership. The first phase of SOS consists of a five year period (2010 to 2015), co funded by the World Bank (original pledge of US$5million through the Development Grant Facility, actual funds equated to US$3.9million), and the Global Environment Facility /GEF) (US$4.9 million), plus additional private sector sources (an expected US$10 million). The World Bank is a major funder of biodiversity conservation both through lending to client countries and as an Implementing Agency of the GEF. The justification for the creation of SOS is that it complements the Bank s long term and ongoing conservation efforts, none of which have been designed specifically to reverse the extinction of globally threatened species. The World Bank was also expected to have the necessary convening power and authority to undertake the policy dialogue necessary to engage the private sector to leverage additional sustainable financing. The design of the SOS Partnership was set up to attract additional resources, in particular from the private sector. In the documentation, SOS is described as well positioned and credible for high return on investment to engage international corporations, foundations and governments at the highest level, especially companies with animals or plants in their logos. The design of SOS also included a strategy to promote cross learning and replication to build on lessons learned. It aspired to strengthen collaborations among countries, local governments, NGOs, bilaterals and the private sector, to support national and regional commitments under international conventions, and to support national biodiversity strategy and action plans. Although it was recognised that there are various global grant Partnerships targeted to species conservation, currently only a small proportion of the species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species are receiving conservation attention. It was planned that SOS would leverage muchneeded additional funding for species conservation, especially from the private sector, and target many threatened species. SOS was designed to align with and complement other global conservation initiatives, including the Mohamed bin Zayed Conservation Fund (initiated at the same time as SOS), the CBD Program of Work on Protected Areas and GEF funded initiatives (2010 Biodiversity Indicator Partnership, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and the UNEP GEF Communities of Conservation project with the Alliance for Zero Extinction). SOS was designed based on learning about structures, targets, and processes from existing species conservation grant Partnerships, in particular the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). 9

As a coalition, SOS was designed to support on the ground field conservation projects globally, through a species conservation fund. IUCN administers and executes 1 the fund as a project on behalf of the SOS partners through a Secretariat with a composition, institutional framework, functions and resources satisfactory to the Bank. Managed through this Secretariat, three calls for proposals have been issued, projects have been reviewed and selected, and grants have been allocated to successful applicants. Each Call for Proposals was aligned to the Strategic Directions identified by the Technical Advisory Group in consultation with IUCN s Global Species Partnership and Species Survival Commission (SSC), and guided by species action plans (existing or required) and information from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. SOS therefore has been designed to efficiently and effectively respond to the need for targeted conservation funding through development of strategic investment plans for threatened species, groups of species and their habitats. It is also able to provide rapid action funding for specific grants not limited by the SOS Strategic Directions, which can be mobilised quickly when required. SOS aspires to base its decisions on sound scientific knowledge derived through a consultative and participatory process. 3.1 SOS Evaluation 2014 Commissioned by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and mainly for use by the IUCN and SOS management, the World Bank, the GEF and other SOS partners, the purpose of this evaluation is to strengthen SOS as a grant making mechanism and as a means of delivering outcomes and impacts for species conservation. Evaluation Objectives: 1. Assess the extent to which SOS is relevant and appropriate to the grantees and species conservation 2. Assess the extent of different kinds of conservation actions SOS tends to support and the extent to which grantees are able to report conservation impacts and outcomes 3. Generate lessons learned to date on the implementation of SOS, covering management and governance of SOS. The evaluation uses mixed methods including a review of Partnership and project portfolio documents, a grantees survey and a semi structured interview with SOS governance and management stakeholders. 1 At the level of its own grants management, the SOS Partnership is an implementer and its grantees are the executors of the projects. 10

4. SOS PARTNERSHIP PROFILE 4.1 SOS Phase One: 2010 2015 4.1.1 Partnership structure Currently SOS is governed by the Donor Council with a maximum of eight members who meet biannually. The Council s function is to provide guidance, leadership and oversight; it is the ultimate decision body. It was originally planned that private sector representation on the Donor Council would require a funding commitment of $1.5million. The original Donor Council chaired by the GEF consisted of the GEF Secretariat, the World Bank, IUCN, Nokia and a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO): World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). As of 2013 the two year tenure for the representative NGO, WWF, has expired and the Donor Council welcomed three new members in 2014, representing the Convention on Illegal Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), The Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Nokia s commitment came to an end in 2013. The SOS Working Group, now called the Technical Advisory Group in line with its function, consists of 11 members including donor representatives and meets twice a year. The original representative of WWF has been replaced in 2014 by the new ZSL representative. The SOS Secretariat is the permanent team which manages the SOS Partnership. It is positioned within IUCN and has 3 full time staff, with the SOS Director an additional 0.5 full time, in charge of promotion, operations, monitoring and reporting. Further information on SOS governance can be found in the SOS Operational Manual which also contains the Terms of References of the SOS Donor Council, SOS Working Group and for each of the 4 positions within the SOS Secretariat. Any additional changes to the governance decided by the SOS Donor Council or proposed by the SOS Working Group are also detailed in the internal meeting reports from the relevant Donor Council or Working Group (now called the Technical Advisory Group) meetings. 4.1.2 SOS Partnership Design The following information outlines the SOS objectives, key indicators, the four components which are interlinked, and planned outcomes with their individual indicators. The original versions are listed here (updates will be highlighted in the next section). Project Development Objective (PDO): to support the establishment of a viable funding mechanism for the conservation of globally threatened species and their habitats supported by private sector contributions and administered by a competent organisation with global reach. Global Environment Objective (GEO): to improve the conservation status of globally threatened species or populations and their habitats. Key indicators (PDO, GEO): 1. Improved protection and/or management of at least 60 threatened species or populations and their habitats; 2. At least 3 new species profiles to guide SOS investments are developed and under implementation; 3. At least an additional ten million United States Dollars (US$10,000,000) secured from the private sector for conservation action targeted to threatened species during the 5 year period of the project (subject to IUCN s Operational Guidelines for Private Sector Engagement (Version 2.0) effective as of February 2009). 11

Project components (four interlinked components): 1. A threatened species grant Partnership that will provide funding for threatened species projects and a rapid action fund to address conservation situations in need of immediate attention; 2. Species action strategies and monitoring to inform conservation investments; 3. Mobilising innovative financing, in particular through private sector engagement and communication to raise the profile of species conservation; 4. Partnership execution and management. Outcome 1: Stabilise and improve the status of multiple threatened species I. At least 20 projects that demonstrate conservation progress for threatened species or populations and their habitats as measured by a species specific tracking tool developed by IUCN and described in the operational manual. II. At least 40 small grants that catalyse early action on the conservation of threatened species or populations and their habitats as measured by a species specific tracking tool developed by IUCN and described in the operational manual. Outcome 2: Improving our knowledge of species status and our ability to take effective action I. Development of new profiles for 3 priority species groups to guide investments II. Red List updated for targeted species. III. Status of and project impact on SOS target species effectively monitored Outcome 3: Secure significant resources for species conservation from the private sector using financing mechanisms and awareness campaigns I. At least 10 new private sector contributors subject to IUCN s Operational Guidelines for Private Sector Engagement (Version 2.0) effective as of February 2009 II. III. Effective communication and marketing program implemented Visitors to Web site and newsletter subscribers increase by at least 70% over 5 year period Outcome 4: Partnership managed effectively and transparently. I. SOS strategies and annual action and investment plans developed, approved, and guide grant making II. Overall program, including all activities and financial management, effectively monitored and in compliance with SOS Operational Manual III. Program wide replication strategy developed and implemented to disseminate best practice for species conservation IV. SOS website documents program, projects, and species in a timely and effective fashion V. Publications produced and disseminated on SOS experiences, lessons learned and specific themes VI. 100% of final project reports compiled by grant recipients available online VII. 5 annual reports and 10 biannual reports produced 12

4.1.3 SOS Partnership Design updates Since the beginnings of the Partnership there have been minimal changes to the Partnership Design, however two elements have been cancelled: Key Indicator 2: At least 3 new species profiles to guide SOS investments are developed and under implementation Outcome 2, Indicator I: Development of new profiles for 3 priority species groups to guide investments. It was decided in the fourth Donor Council meeting (2012) that SOS should not invest time and resources in such work, as a number of regional and taxonomic analyses already exist. To date, according to information provided by the SOS Secretariat, SOS is said to be exceeding outcome 1 (i), with more than 20 projects supported, which have been selected to achieve conservation progress for threatened species. However, the target of 40 early action (Rapid Action Grants) for indicator (ii) has not been met as most proposals submitted do not meet the urgency criteria. For outcome 2, the indicators here are described as being on track, with the status of the SOS targeted species being regularly updated on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species through the two annual updates. For outcome 2, indicator (iii), SOS monitors the status of projects through reports and requests for grantees to submit species monitoring information. In terms of communication (outcome 3), SOS has been implementing a communications Partnership which is progressively reaching a wider audience but has not mobilised significant resources to date. Fundraising efforts however have had some positive success (e.g. NOKIA, Fondation Segré, Fondation Crédit Agricole, public donations) and KfW (German Development Bank) chose IUCN to implement a large tiger grant making mechanism (the Integrated Tiger and Habitat Conservation Partnership) modelled on SOS. Finally, for outcome 4, almost all indicators are said to be being achieved, however, there are delays due to limitations in Secretariat capacity. 4.1.4 Fundraising strategy The original fundraising strategy (2009) for SOS was primarily concerned with leveraging funds from the private sector to benefit species conservation projects. The intention was also to raise funds for less charismatic species identified by experts as being in need of conservation, in recognition that members of the private sector would be motivated by particular highly charismatic species. SOS would also look to engage; foundations, governments and the general public. This strategy was to be prospect driven and rely on research and analysis of a spectrum of companies which would be categorized by: their logos and branding (presence of species), evidence of interest in biodiversity, evidence of interest in environmental issues. It was felt that SOS would be well positioned to engage the private sector through philanthropy and sponsorship. SOS would have one fundraising and communications specialist with the aim of soliciting support with a face to face approach, and a continued high level of communication to retain credibility. To succeed with this strategy, initially a pool of prospects would be identified and a dedicated IUCN team established to deliver stakeholder consultations, communications and marketing. Following this would be work to secure feedback and ultimately involvement in SOS. Support through a number of Donor Levels would be available: Leaders (min US$500,000pa), Champion (min US$250,000 pa), Supporter (min US$100,000pa) and Friend (<$100, 000pa). Leaders would be encouraged and recruited from the private sector; this would involve the most significant financial contribution, public endorsement of SOS and representation at events and a seat on the Donor Council. 13

The aim was for SOS to raise its planned budget of US$20million in its first 5 year phase. The actual total funds achieved equated to US$12.8million, this is 64% of what was expected (Table 3). However, this does not include IUCN s in kind contributions, or the EUR 20 million raised from KfW for a specific SOS style tiger programme. Private Sector Funding accounted for a total of US$1.8million. The rest was leveraged from Bilateral donors (FFEM), Foundations (Fondation Segré) and individuals or the general public. Fundraising target/costs expected US$ million 20 Table 3: Fund raising targets and funds achieved SOS Phase 2 SOS Phase 1 (2010 2015) (2016 2020) Funds raised US$ million Funding source 4.9 GEF *3.9 World Bank 1.3 FFEM 2.662 Other 12.762 Fundraising target/costs expected US$ million Table 3: Fundraising targets/expected costs and actual funds raised for SOS phase one. GEF: Global Environment Facility, FFEM: Fond Français pour l'environnement Mondial, Other: NOKIA, Fondation Segré, Fondation Crédit Agricole, bequest, public donations *US$5 million was pledged and expected from the World Bank, US$3.9 million was received 7.2 As of 2014 SOS has a new fundraising strategy with an immediate objective to secure a minimum of US$2.5 million primarily through corporate sponsorship to fund one call for proposals (CFP4). There is a longer term objective to triple this annual income to US$7.5million by 2020. Fundraising activities would be spearheaded by communications teams and media partners, transforming the current SOS profile. At the time of this report, SOS is working to leverage additional funding from new and existing sources. An application for a second phase of SOS is planned for submission to the GEF. For the immediate future, strategic funding targets (long term) include bi/multi lateral organisations interested in SOS as a mechanism to achieve Aichi Target 12 ( By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained ) and progressive companies (e.g. with marketing and CSR) relations and budgets) who could sponsor SOS (through the aforementioned Donor Levels). Other targets are described as new foundations, corporate foundations and lotteries, or high networth individuals. In addition, general public donations would be encouraged. The aim is to achieve 80% of the 2020 income goal by targeting bi/multi lateral organisations and progressive companies, with the remaining 20% sourced from the opportunistic targets. 4.1.5 Project selection process Following a public Call For Proposals (CFP), Threatened Species Grant (TSG) applications are submitted on line. Applicants can apply for between USD$ 25,001 800,000 USD for a 1 or 2 year TSG project, it is clarified however that there is a limited budget for each call with larger grants (> US$ 14

200,000) limited in number, and that the majority of the grants awarded are expected to be between US$ 50,000 and US$ 150,000. Once applications are received, proposals are initially screened for eligibility by the Secretariat. Once eligible projects are selected, they are reviewed by experts identified through the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC). Following a call, full proposals are reviewed for their technical merit, priority of proposed actions, feasibility, and ability of applicant to carry out the project. Reviewers evaluate each proposal and fill in a review form, scoring their quality against six criteria on a scale of 1 5. Each proposal therefore receives a score ranging from 6 to 30. Final ranking is carried out based on the rankings and comments of specialist reviewers, where using a spreadsheet, the average scores for each proposal based on their reviews is determined and proposals placed in rank order. The process then continues with a review of the proposals and their scores and ranking by the SOS Working Group. After examining all proposals and their reviews, the SOS Working Group recommends a selection of projects for funding to the SOS Donor Council. Rapid Action Grants (RAG) have a different review process, with proposals submitted at any time. The funds available are also limited (maximum USD$25,000). These projects are not restricted by Strategic Direction and proposal, review and subsequent decision should take no more than 30 days. All projects are however required to meet strict social and environmental safeguards and SOS Eligibility requirements. Prior to the first call for proposals, during the Donor Council s third meeting in 2011 it was suggested that, in light of a concern about the pace of the Partnership and a need to distribute funds more quickly to new grantees, the revision process for received grants applications should be shortened. As a result, the procedure is now a single stage process in which the applicants submit a full project proposal (proposal, budget, logical framework) and additional documents. Otherwise, the process has remained the same as described in the original SOS Operational Manual (version 2011), apart from minor adjustment in working practices as part of adaptive management over the first phase. For example, the SOS Working Group (now Technical Advisory Group) now ranks proposals within each Strategic Direction (from CFP3 onwards) to assist with the comparison of projects within their area of focus. Also, for proposals for which it is clear funding would not be granted (e.g. poor fit with Partnership aims), the Secretariat can in future make the decision not send them on for further review. This will make future reviewing more time efficient and avoid requesting expert review on projects which are known to be unsuitable. 4.1.6 Procedures for selected projects Once proposals have been selected and the grant (TSG/RAG) accepted by the applicant, a final technical review is carried out by the Secretariat. At this point a dialogue with the applicants is established: there may be requests from SOS for applications to be modified according to comments and suggestions made by reviewers and members of the SOS Working Group. A grant agreement is then prepared for legal review and internal sign off to ensure compliance with IUCN requirements, as well as SOS restrictions, policies, and procedures. Once the final justification documents are approved and a contract signed by the SOS Director (and there is no objections from the World Bank), each grant is awarded and paid in tranches as long as requirements continue to be met. Once active, all SOS supported projects are required to track results and are evaluated, which includes monitoring procedures that are consistent with the GEF and World Bank. SOS grants are managed by monitoring the grantee s technical and financial performance, tracking progress and completion for deliverables, reviewing payment requests, discussing grant issues with the grantee and local partners, conducting site visits when needed, and ensuring adequate follow up to any issues that arise. All grantees are required to submit interim and final technical reports, and financial reporting as detailed in their grant agreement. Projects deemed as high risk (e.g. with low 15

capacity for financial management) are expected to provide more frequent financial reports. Independent audits may also be a requirement. At project completion, all grantees will be required to submit a final Technical and Financial Report. As projects close, final reporting requirements are met and any unused funds are returned to SOS and made available for other grants. For all projects, SOS Secretariat staff members are available to answer questions about reporting and project specifics as well as to discuss biodiversity conservation challenges throughout project progression. The SOS Secretariat is responsible for monitoring supported projects; this is conducted at three levels: (1) SOS Partnership, (2) species status and critical habitat, and (3) individual project. The information generated by the SOS procedures and provided by the grantees enables the Secretariat to monitor individual projects and the portfolio. Lessons are also documented with the aim to disseminate and replicate lessons learned and good practice. It is planned that results will lead to adaptive management and also feed into analysis and documentation of lessons learned and best practices within and across regions and taxa. 4.1.7 Strategic directions and grants to date This evaluation falls in mid 2014, 3.5 years since the launch of SOS. There have been three Calls For Proposals (CFPs) based on different Strategic Directions for each call. There have been 744 grant applications, with a total of 84 approved (11%) since the start of the SOS Partnership (table 4). The portfolio now contains 82 projects, since two projects in CFP3 have been cancelled. In total, the SOS Partnership has granted US$8,723,875 to the conservation Partnerships which have been selected. Table 4: Overview of SOS project selection figures Grant Type Threatened Species Grants (TSG) Call (CFP) 1 (2011) 2 (2012) 3 (2013) Strategic direction (SD) Threatened Asian Mammals Grant applications Eligibility Recommended Approved Threatened African Mammals 5 341 266 (78%) 23 (8.6%) 23 Critically Endangered Birds 5 Threatened Amphibians 4 Threatened Tropical Asian Vertebrates Threatened Cycads 3 Threatened Freshwater African 131 92 (70%) 25 (27%) 25 Animals 1 Small Marine Mammals 5 Threatened West and Central African Vertebrates Threatened Sharks and Rays 121 82 (67%) 32 (39%) 30* 7 Threatened Conifers 3 Threatened Cycads 2 By SD 9 16 16 Rapid Action Grants (RAG) 2011 to 2014 151 figure not available N/A 6 N/A Table 4: Outline of applications, received eligible proposals, and recommended and approved projects for Threatened Species Grants (TSGs) and Rapid Action Grants (RAGs), and number of projects approved for each Strategic Direction (SD). * Two projects are the result of merging 2 proposals for the same sites (4 proposals turned into 2 projects). Two additional projects were later cancelled due to funding constraints thus reducing the number of projects funded to 28 (although 30 were approved). 16

5. Method of review This evaluation was based largely on three main information sources: The perspective of SOS Grantees was gained through a survey. The response to the requested grantees survey was good (64%). The quantitative and qualitative results from this survey were reviewed and analysed, with responses grouped and coded. A thorough but light (statistical) analysis of projects within the SOS portfolio (15 completed projects, and 20 on going projects selected to represent all seven types of Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) Conservation Actions 2 used by the Secretariat to evaluate project outcomes). Project documents were reviewed and information compiled in spread sheets for descriptive analysis. Direct interviews with people involved with Partnership governance and management, with the qualitative information provided also reviewed and analysed. In addition, the reviewer had access to supporting information from SOS Partnership documents, existing portfolio data, the SOS website, notes from SOS meetings, and direct access to support within IUCN. 5.1 Grantees survey Responses from the survey of grantees would provide the information to meet objective one of this evaluation: (1) To assess the extent to which SOS is relevant and appropriate to the grantees and species conservation. The questions also relate to and may provide supporting information for objectives two and three. A short survey was sent out via email to 70 SOS grant recipients, 47 (64%) responded. The survey collected both quantitative data, as well as allowing for more open qualitative responses, descriptions and feedback. The survey questions are outlined in Annex 1a. The survey was designed to record valuable feedback from grant beneficiaries and to assess how relevant and appropriate SOS is as a conservation grant making mechanism. The survey also provided the opportunity for grantees to feed information, suggestions and advice into the next phase of the SOS Partnership. Analysis of the responses includes calculating descriptive figures from the closed responses (tick box answers), and a review of the open comments and descriptions with coding where possible. Description of project outcomes were categorised/ described against CMP Conservation Actions. 5.2 SOS project portfolio analysis The desk analysis of documents from completed and on going SOS projects would provide the information to meet objective two of this evaluation: (2) To assess the extent of different kinds of conservation actions SOS tends to support and the extent to which grantees are able to report conservation impacts and outcomes. Information would also be compiled to assess the lessons learned as reported by projects, which also supports the attainment of objective three. 2 The Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP) classification of Conservation Actions are used by the SOS Secretariat to categorise projects and their areas of work. There are seven Conservation Actions: (1) Land and water protection, (2) Land and water management, (3) Species management, (4) Education and awareness, (5) Law and policy, (6) Livelihoods and economics, (7) Monitoring. 17

5.2.1 Completed projects The 15 completed projects represent projects which, at the time of this evaluation, had submitted final reports. There was therefore a full set of reports for each project (initial proposal, logical framework, technical report(s) and final report). The number of reports available varied with the length and type of project. There were two Rapid Action Grant (RAG) projects within the sample, for which there was one technical report in addition to their final reports (RAGs are for shorter projects). Data were collected from every report for each project. Firstly, project deliverables/results (from here on called results ) and components/objectives (from here on called objectives ) were identified in each project s original logical framework, and collated in an excel spread sheet. Technical reporting information was reviewed in the final reports and compared to the original planned results and objectives. Information was categorised to indicate how well projects were achieving what they set out to do, as well as indicate how well the reporting system was able to capture such information (categories: no mention, not achieved, partly achieved, achieved and exceeded ). Secondly, lessons learned were collated from all project reports for each project. Lessons reported were grouped and categorised and the type of lessons identified. Lessons were also marked as either positive (having a good impact of the project e.g. new partnerships) or negative (e.g. limiting factors which had a negative impact on the project or a reported difficulty or complaint which did not benefit the project). The reported lessons would also have potential to provide useful information or generate new questions for existing and future conservation projects. Thirdly, information from the specific SOS questions in each report (specific Species Conservation Impacts, found in section 3 of the final technical report) was categorised in a spread sheet. The five conservation impact headings for which data was collated for this evaluation were: (1) species/population conservation, (2) Red List status change, (3) critical habitat, (4) threat reduction (species and habitat), and (5) conservation facilitation ( Conservation facilitation is a term used to identify outcomes which are enabling conservation e.g. for the future. Information is requested on the forms and reviewed here under specific facilitation themes: legislation, finance, wildlands/protected area and strategy e.g. species action plans). Under the five conservation impact headings, data was recorded as a tally if a project reported against them specifically. This enabled simple descriptive quantitative analysis e.g. percentage of projects achieving improved species status, or the percentage of projects achieving good conservation facilitation overall. Data was tallied under specific headings, for example, change in species status (improved, stable, working for a positive impact, unknown or not applicable), Red List status (positive, negative, none, unknown) or critical habitats (improved, stable, working for a positive impact, unknown or not applicable). Threats to species and habitat were categorised as: stopped, reduced, stabilised, unknown/not applicable. Finally, each conservation facilitation category was marked as poor, fair, good, very good and an additional category of unknown/not applicable was added. Finally, the final technical reports for each project were reviewed for information described as unexpected impacts which may not have been captured within other parts of the reports. These qualitative responses were collated and reviewed in a similar way to the lessons learned. Each impact was categorised as positive or negative, as before, and the unexpected impacts were also categorised and combined, to reveal the type of additional outcomes which were being reported. 18

5.2.2 On going Projects The on going (incomplete) projects were sampled from a total of 54 Call For Proposal 1 (CFP1) and CFP2 projects (37% representative sample). CFP3 projects were excluded as the majority were yet to submit any reports at the time of the evaluation. The sample of 20 projects was purposeful and based on their categorisation within the seven Conservation Actions. Projects were selected to ensure a minimum 20% representation of each of these actions. Information from the ongoing projects was collected in a similar way to the complete projects. However, only the latest report for each project was reviewed and information compared to the results and objectives detailed in each project s logical framework. This would also allow project performance at different stages of progression to be considered. Progress against each result and objective in each project was tallied similarly to the complete projects but in slightly different headings to reflect the different stages of reporting (e.g. not achieved was replaced with no progress yet, partly achieved was replaced by some progress ongoing, and an additional category of good progress ongoing preceded the existing categories of, achieved and exceeded ). Descriptive statistics could then be generated for the sample as a whole and broken down for each reporting stage. Information on lessons learned (latest reports) and responses to the key SOS questions (species status, Red List status, critical habitat, threats (species and habitat) and conservation facilitation) was collected and analysed as for the completed projects. The ongoing projects had been selected based on their work within specific Conservation Actions, therefore data collected here could be re organised and reviewed for each Action. To do this simply, the existing data (results and objectives marked as good progress ongoing, achieved and exceeded ) was grouped together for every project. This collated data for project results and objectives which were achieving good progress or better, was arranged under the relevant Conservation Action headings in a spread sheet. Percentages were then calculated for each project within each Conservation Action. The mean percentage would provide an indication of how achievable the planned results appear to be within each Conservation Action category. 5.3 Governance and management interviews Governance and management interviews would provide the information to meet objective three of this evaluation: (3) To generate lessons learned to date on the implementation of SOS, covering management and governance of SOS. Personal telephone interviews were conducted with 12 interviewees involved with and/or having good knowledge of the SOS Partnership. The key informants included individuals from the Donor Council, Technical Advisory Group, SOS Secretariat, and senior IUCN and Species Survival Commission staff. A list of interviewees and the eight questions asked are outlined in Annex 1b. The interview was informal and designed to encourage open conversation and generate concise feedback about any positive and negative aspects of the SOS governance and management during the Partnership s first phase. The interview responses were reviewed, grouped and coded for analysis, and any lessons learned to guide the future of SOS clarified. The information enabled triangulation within this review. 19